1
|
Wang W, Liu X, Liao Y, Zeng Y, Chen Y, Yu B, Yang Z, Gao H, Qin B. Mixed-size spot scanning with a compact large momentum acceptance superconducting (LMA-SC) gantry beamline for proton therapy. Phys Med Biol 2024; 69:10.1088/1361-6560/ad45a6. [PMID: 38688290 PMCID: PMC11265271 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad45a6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2024] [Accepted: 04/30/2024] [Indexed: 05/02/2024]
Abstract
Objective. Lowering treatment costs and improving treatment quality are two primary goals for next-generation proton therapy (PT) facilities. This work will design a compact large momentum acceptance superconducting (LMA-SC) gantry beamline to reduce the footprint and expense of the PT facilities, with a novel mixed-size spot scanning method to improve the sparing of organs at risk (OAR).Approach. For the LMA-SC gantry beamline, the movable energy slit is placed in the middle of the last achromatic bending section, and the beam momentum spread of delivered spots can be easily changed during the treatment. Simultaneously, changing the collimator size can provide spots with various lateral spot sizes. Based on the provided large-size and small-size spot models, the treatment planning with mixed spot scanning is optimized: the interior of the target is irradiated with large-size spots (to cover the uniform-dose interior efficiently), while the peripheral of the target is irradiated with small-size spots (to shape the sharp dose falloff at the peripheral accurately).Main results. The treatment plan with mixed-size spot scanning was evaluated and compared with small and large-size spot scanning for thirteen clinical prostate cases. The mixed-size spot plan had superior target dose homogeneities, better protection of OAR, and better plan robustness than the large-size spot plan. Compared to the small-size spot plan, the mixed-size spot plan had comparable plan quality, better plan robustness, and reduced plan delivery time from 65.9 to 40.0 s.Significance. The compact LMA-SC gantry beamline is proposed with mixed-size spot scanning, with demonstrated footprint reduction and improved plan quality compared to the conventional spot scanning method.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wei Wang
- State Key Laboratory of Advanced Electromagnetic Technology, School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
| | - Xu Liu
- State Key Laboratory of Advanced Electromagnetic Technology, School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
| | - Yicheng Liao
- State Key Laboratory of Advanced Electromagnetic Technology, School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
| | - Yiling Zeng
- Department of Medical Physics, School of Physics and Technology, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China
| | - Yu Chen
- State Key Laboratory of Advanced Electromagnetic Technology, School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
| | - Benzhaoxia Yu
- State Key Laboratory of Advanced Electromagnetic Technology, School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
| | - Zhiyong Yang
- Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430022, China
| | - Hao Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas Medical Center, USA
| | - Bin Qin
- State Key Laboratory of Advanced Electromagnetic Technology, School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ong ALK, Knight K, Panettieri V, Dimmock M, Tuan JKL, Tan HQ, Wright C. Proton versus photon therapy for high-risk prostate cancer with dose escalation of dominant intraprostatic lesions: a preliminary planning study. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1241711. [PMID: 38023170 PMCID: PMC10663272 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1241711] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2023] [Accepted: 10/23/2023] [Indexed: 12/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of safe-dose escalation to dominant intraprostatic lesions (DILs) and assess the clinical impact using dose-volume (DV) and biological metrics in photon and proton therapy. Biological parameters defined as late grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) derived from planned (D P) and accumulated dose (D A) were utilized. Materials and methods In total, 10 patients with high-risk prostate cancer with multiparametric MRI-defined DILs were investigated. Each patient had two plans with a focal boost to the DILs using intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Plans were optimized to obtain DIL coverage while respecting the mandatory organ-at-risk constraints. For the planning evaluation, DV metrics, tumor control probability (TCP) for the DILs and whole prostate excluding the DILs (prostate-DILs), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for the rectum and bladder were calculated. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analyzing TCP and NTCP data. Results IMPT achieved a higher Dmean for the DILs compared to VMAT (IMPT: 68.1 GyRBE vs. VMAT: 66.6 Gy, p < 0.05). Intermediate-high rectal and bladder doses were lower for IMPT (p < 0.05), while the high-dose region (V60 Gy) remained comparable. IMPT-TCP for prostate-DIL were higher compared to VMAT (IMPT: 86%; α/β = 3, 94.3%; α/β = 1.5 vs. VMAT: 84.7%; α/β = 3, 93.9%; α/β = 1.5, p < 0.05). Likewise, IMPT obtained a moderately higher DIL TCP (IMPT: 97%; α/β = 3, 99.3%; α/β = 1.5 vs. VMAT: 95.9%; α/β = 3, 98.9%; α/β = 1.5, p < 0.05). Rectal D A-NTCP displayed the highest GI toxicity risk at 5.6%, and IMPT has a lower GI toxicity risk compared to VMAT-predicted Quantec-NTCP (p < 0.05). Bladder D P-NTCP projected a higher GU toxicity than D A-NTCP, with VMAT having the highest risk (p < 0.05). Conclusion Dose escalation using IMPT is able to achieve a high TCP for the DILs, with the lowest rectal and bladder DV doses at the intermediate-high-dose range. The reduction in physical dose was translated into a lower NTCP (p < 0.05) for the bladder, although rectal toxicity remained equivalent.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ashley Li Kuan Ong
- Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
- Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia
| | - Kellie Knight
- Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia
| | - Vanessa Panettieri
- Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia
- Department of Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, VIC, Australia
- Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Mathew Dimmock
- Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia
- School of Allied Health Professions, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom
| | | | - Hong Qi Tan
- Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Caroline Wright
- Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sproull M, Wilson E, Miller R, Camphausen K. The Future of Radioactive Medicine. Radiat Res 2023; 200:80-91. [PMID: 37141143 PMCID: PMC10466314 DOI: 10.1667/rade-23-00031.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2023] [Accepted: 04/07/2023] [Indexed: 05/05/2023]
Abstract
The discovery of X rays in the late 19th century heralded the beginning of a new age in medicine, and the advent of channeling the power of radiation to diagnose and treat human disease. Radiation has been leveraged in medicine in a multitude of ways and is a critical element of cancer care including screening, diagnosis, surveillance, and interventional treatments. Modern radiotherapy techniques include a multitude of methodologies utilizing both externally and internally delivered radiation from a variety of approaches. This review provides a comprehensive overview of contemporary radiotherapy methodologies, the field of radiopharmaceuticals and theranostics, effects of low dose radiation and highlights the phenomena of fear of exposure to radiation and its impact in modern medicine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M. Sproull
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - E. Wilson
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - R.W. Miller
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - K. Camphausen
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hussain RN, Chiu A, Pittam B, Taktak A, Damato BE, Kacperek A, Errington D, Cauchi P, Chadha V, Connolly J, Salvi S, Rundle P, Cohen V, Arora A, Sagoo M, Bekir O, Kopsidas K, Heimann H. Proton beam radiotherapy for choroidal and ciliary body melanoma in the UK-national audit of referral patterns of 1084 cases. Eye (Lond) 2023; 37:1033-1036. [PMID: 35840716 PMCID: PMC10050435 DOI: 10.1038/s41433-022-02178-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2022] [Revised: 07/03/2022] [Accepted: 07/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Proton beam therapy has been utilised for the treatment of uveal melanoma in the UK for over 30 years, undertaken under a single centre. In the UK, all ocular tumours are treated at one of four centres. We aimed to understand the variation in referral patterns to the UK proton service, capturing all uveal melanoma patients treated with this modality. METHODS Retrospective analysis of data regarding all patients treated at the Clatterbridge Proton service between January 2004 and December 2014. RESULTS A total of 1084 patients with uveal melanoma were treated. The mean age was 57 years (range 9-90 years), basal diameter of 11.5 mm (range 2.0-23.4 mm) and tumour thickness of 3.9 mm (range 0.1-15.4 mm). The majority were TNM stage I (39%) or II (36%). The distance to the optic nerve varied from 0 to 24.5 mm with 148 (14%) of patients having ciliary body involvement. There were variations in the phenotypic characteristic of the tumours treated with protons from different centres, with London referring predominantly small tumours at the posterior pole, Glasgow referring large tumours often at the ciliary body and Liverpool sending a mix of these groups. DISCUSSION In the UK, common indications for the use of proton treatment in uveal melanoma include small tumours in the posterior pole poorly accessible for plaque treatment (adjacent to the disc), tumours at the posterior pole affecting the fovea and large anterior tumours traditionally too large for brachytherapy. This is the first UK-wide audit enabling the capture of all patients treated at the single proton centre.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R N Hussain
- Liverpool Ocular Oncology Centre, Royal Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, L7 8XP, UK.
| | - A Chiu
- Liverpool Ocular Oncology Centre, Royal Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, L7 8XP, UK
| | - B Pittam
- Liverpool Ocular Oncology Centre, Royal Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, L7 8XP, UK
| | - A Taktak
- Department of Eye and Vision Science and Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK
| | - B E Damato
- Ocular Oncology Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, EC1V 2PD, UK
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology at Moorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, EC1V 2PD, UK
| | - A Kacperek
- University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - D Errington
- Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Clatterbridge Road, Bebington, Wirral, CH63 4JY, UK
| | - P Cauchi
- Tennent Institute of Ophthalmology, Gartnavel General Hospital, 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow, G12 0YN, UK
| | - V Chadha
- Tennent Institute of Ophthalmology, Gartnavel General Hospital, 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow, G12 0YN, UK
| | - J Connolly
- Tennent Institute of Ophthalmology, Gartnavel General Hospital, 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow, G12 0YN, UK
| | - S Salvi
- The National Sheffield Ocular Oncology Service, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, S10 2JF, Sheffield, UK
| | - P Rundle
- The National Sheffield Ocular Oncology Service, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, S10 2JF, Sheffield, UK
| | - V Cohen
- Ocular Oncology Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, EC1V 2PD, UK
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology at Moorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, EC1V 2PD, UK
| | - A Arora
- Ocular Oncology Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, EC1V 2PD, UK
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology at Moorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, EC1V 2PD, UK
| | - M Sagoo
- Ocular Oncology Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, EC1V 2PD, UK
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology at Moorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, EC1V 2PD, UK
| | - O Bekir
- Tennent Institute of Ophthalmology, Gartnavel General Hospital, 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow, G12 0YN, UK
| | - K Kopsidas
- The National Sheffield Ocular Oncology Service, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, S10 2JF, Sheffield, UK
| | - H Heimann
- Liverpool Ocular Oncology Centre, Royal Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, L7 8XP, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Trotter J, Lin A. Advances in Proton Therapy for the Management of Head and Neck Tumors. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2023; 32:587-598. [PMID: 37182994 DOI: 10.1016/j.soc.2023.03.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/08/2023]
Abstract
Proton therapy (PBRT) is a form of external beam radiotherapy with several dosimetric advantages compared with conventional photon (x-ray) radiotherapy. Unlike x-rays, protons deposit most of their dose over a finite range, with no exit dose, in a pattern known as the Bragg peak. Clinically, this can be exploited to optimize dose to tumors while delivering a lower integral dose to normal tissues. However, the optimal role of PBRT is not as well-defined as advanced x-ray-based techniques such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy.
Collapse
|
6
|
Clark M, Ding X, Zhao L, Pogue B, Gladstone D, Rahman M, Zhang R, Bruza P. Ultra-fast, high spatial resolution single-pulse scintillation imaging of synchrocyclotron pencil beam scanning proton delivery. Phys Med Biol 2023; 68:045016. [PMID: 36716492 PMCID: PMC9935801 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/acb753] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2022] [Revised: 01/12/2023] [Accepted: 01/30/2023] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
Objective.To demonstrates the ability of an ultra-fast imaging system to measure high resolution spatial and temporal beam characteristics of a synchrocyclotron proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) system.Approach.An ultra-fast (1 kHz frame rate), intensified CMOS camera was triggered by a scintillation sheet coupled to a remote trigger unit for beam on detection. The camera was calibrated using the linear (R2> 0.9922) dose response of a single spot beam to varying currents. Film taken for the single spot beam was used to produce a scintillation intensity to absolute dose calibration.Main results. Spatial alignment was confirmed with the film, where thexandy-profiles of the single spot cumulative image agreed within 1 mm. A sample brain patient plan was analyzed to demonstrate dose and temporal accuracy for a clinically-relevant plan, through agreement within 1 mm to the planned and delivered spot locations. The cumulative dose agreed with the planned dose with a gamma passing rate of 97.5% (2 mm/3%, 10% dose threshold).Significance. This is the first system able to capture single-pulse spatial and temporal information for the unique pulse structure of a synchrocyclotron PBS systems at conventional dose rates, enabled by the ultra-fast sampling frame rate of this camera. This study indicates that, with continued camera development and testing, target applications in clinical and FLASH proton beam characterization and validation are possible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Xuanfeng Ding
- Beaumont Proton Therapy Center, Detroit, MI, United States of America
| | - Lewei Zhao
- Beaumont Proton Therapy Center, Detroit, MI, United States of America
| | - Brian Pogue
- University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States of America
| | - David Gladstone
- Dartmouth College, NH, Lebanon
- Dartmouth Cancer Center, NH, Lebanon
| | | | - Rongxiao Zhang
- Dartmouth College, NH, Lebanon
- Dartmouth Cancer Center, NH, Lebanon
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Burnet NG, Mee T, Gaito S, Kirkby NF, Aitkenhead AH, Anandadas CN, Aznar MC, Barraclough LH, Borst G, Charlwood FC, Clarke M, Colaco RJ, Crellin AM, Defourney NN, Hague CJ, Harris M, Henthorn NT, Hopkins KI, Hwang E, Ingram SP, Kirkby KJ, Lee LW, Lines D, Lingard Z, Lowe M, Mackay RI, McBain CA, Merchant MJ, Noble DJ, Pan S, Price JM, Radhakrishna G, Reboredo-Gil D, Salem A, Sashidharan S, Sitch P, Smith E, Smith EAK, Taylor MJ, Thomson DJ, Thorp NJ, Underwood TSA, Warmenhoven JW, Wylie JP, Whitfield G. Estimating the percentage of patients who might benefit from proton beam therapy instead of X-ray radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 2022; 95:20211175. [PMID: 35220723 PMCID: PMC10993980 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20211175] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2021] [Revised: 01/11/2022] [Accepted: 01/12/2022] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES High-energy Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) commenced in England in 2018 and NHS England commissions PBT for 1.5% of patients receiving radical radiotherapy. We sought expert opinion on the level of provision. METHODS Invitations were sent to 41 colleagues working in PBT, most at one UK centre, to contribute by completing a spreadsheet. 39 responded: 23 (59%) completed the spreadsheet; 16 (41%) declined, arguing that clinical outcome data are lacking, but joined six additional site-specialist oncologists for two consensus meetings. The spreadsheet was pre-populated with incidence data from Cancer Research UK and radiotherapy use data from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. 'Mechanisms of Benefit' of reduced growth impairment, reduced toxicity, dose escalation and reduced second cancer risk were examined. RESULTS The most reliable figure for percentage of radical radiotherapy patients likely to benefit from PBT was that agreed by 95% of the 23 respondents at 4.3%, slightly larger than current provision. The median was 15% (range 4-92%) and consensus median 13%. The biggest estimated potential benefit was from reducing toxicity, median benefit to 15% (range 4-92%), followed by dose escalation median 3% (range 0 to 47%); consensus values were 12 and 3%. Reduced growth impairment and reduced second cancer risk were calculated to benefit 0.5% and 0.1%. CONCLUSIONS The most secure estimate of percentage benefit was 4.3% but insufficient clinical outcome data exist for confident estimates. The study supports the NHS approach of using the evidence base and developing it through randomised trials, non-randomised studies and outcomes tracking. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE Less is known about the percentage of patients who may benefit from PBT than is generally acknowledged. Expert opinion varies widely. Insufficient clinical outcome data exist to provide robust estimates. Considerable further work is needed to address this, including international collaboration; much is already underway but will take time to provide mature data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neil G Burnet
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Thomas Mee
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Simona Gaito
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Norman F Kirkby
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Adam H Aitkenhead
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Carmel N Anandadas
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Marianne C Aznar
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Lisa H Barraclough
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Gerben Borst
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Frances C Charlwood
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Matthew Clarke
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Rovel J Colaco
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Adrian M Crellin
- NHS England National Clinical Lead Proton Beam Therapy, Leeds
Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds and St James's
Institute of Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Beckett
Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK, Leeds,
United Kingdom
| | - Noemie N Defourney
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Christina J Hague
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Margaret Harris
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Nicholas T Henthorn
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Kirsten I Hopkins
- International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna International
Centre, Vienna,
Austria
| | - E Hwang
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sydney West Radiation
Oncology Network, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre,
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia and
Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney,
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Sam P Ingram
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Karen J Kirkby
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Lip W Lee
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - David Lines
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Zoe Lingard
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Matthew Lowe
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ranald I Mackay
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Catherine A McBain
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Michael J Merchant
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - David J Noble
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Edinburgh Cancer Centre,
Western General Hospital,
Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Shermaine Pan
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - James M Price
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | | | - David Reboredo-Gil
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ahmed Salem
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | | | - Peter Sitch
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ed Smith
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Proton Clinical Outcomes Unit, The Christie NHS Foundation
Trust, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Edward AK Smith
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Michael J Taylor
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - David J Thomson
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Nicola J Thorp
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Tracy SA Underwood
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - John W Warmenhoven
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - James P Wylie
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Gillian Whitfield
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Pakela JM, Knopf A, Dong L, Rucinski A, Zou W. Management of Motion and Anatomical Variations in Charged Particle Therapy: Past, Present, and Into the Future. Front Oncol 2022; 12:806153. [PMID: 35356213 PMCID: PMC8959592 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.806153] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2021] [Accepted: 02/04/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
The major aim of radiation therapy is to provide curative or palliative treatment to cancerous malignancies while minimizing damage to healthy tissues. Charged particle radiotherapy utilizing carbon ions or protons is uniquely suited for this task due to its ability to achieve highly conformal dose distributions around the tumor volume. For these treatment modalities, uncertainties in the localization of patient anatomy due to inter- and intra-fractional motion present a heightened risk of undesired dose delivery. A diverse range of mitigation strategies have been developed and clinically implemented in various disease sites to monitor and correct for patient motion, but much work remains. This review provides an overview of current clinical practices for inter and intra-fractional motion management in charged particle therapy, including motion control, current imaging and motion tracking modalities, as well as treatment planning and delivery techniques. We also cover progress to date on emerging technologies including particle-based radiography imaging, novel treatment delivery methods such as tumor tracking and FLASH, and artificial intelligence and discuss their potential impact towards improving or increasing the challenge of motion mitigation in charged particle therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia M. Pakela
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Antje Knopf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
- Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Cologne, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Lei Dong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Antoni Rucinski
- Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland
| | - Wei Zou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
DeJongh DF, DeJongh EA. An Iterative Least Squares Method for Proton CT Image Reconstruction. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON RADIATION AND PLASMA MEDICAL SCIENCES 2022; 6:304-312. [PMID: 36061217 PMCID: PMC9432481 DOI: 10.1109/trpms.2021.3079140] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
Clinically useful proton Computed Tomography images will rely on algorithms to find the three-dimensional proton stopping power distribution that optimally fits the measured proton data. We present a least squares iterative method with many features to put proton imaging into a more quantitative framework. These include the definition of a unique solution that optimally fits the protons, the definition of an iteration vector that takes into account proton measurement uncertainties, the definition of an optimal step size for each iteration individually, the ability to simultaneously optimize the step sizes of many iterations, the ability to divide the proton data into arbitrary numbers of blocks for parallel processing and use of graphical processing units, and the definition of stopping criteria to determine when to stop iterating. We find that it is possible, for any object being imaged, to provide assurance that the image is quantifiably close to an optimal solution, and the optimization of step sizes reduces the total number of iterations required for convergence. We demonstrate the use of these algorithms on real data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Don F. DeJongh
- ProtonVDA LLC, 1700 Park St Ste 208, Naperville, IL 60563 USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Yap J, De Franco A, Sheehy S. Future Developments in Charged Particle Therapy: Improving Beam Delivery for Efficiency and Efficacy. Front Oncol 2021; 11:780025. [PMID: 34956897 PMCID: PMC8697351 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.780025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2021] [Accepted: 11/16/2021] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
The physical and clinical benefits of charged particle therapy (CPT) are well recognized. However, the availability of CPT and complete exploitation of dosimetric advantages are still limited by high facility costs and technological challenges. There are extensive ongoing efforts to improve upon these, which will lead to greater accessibility, superior delivery, and therefore better treatment outcomes. Yet, the issue of cost remains a primary hurdle as utility of CPT is largely driven by the affordability, complexity and performance of current technology. Modern delivery techniques are necessary but limited by extended treatment times. Several of these aspects can be addressed by developments in the beam delivery system (BDS) which determines the overall shaping and timing capabilities enabling high quality treatments. The energy layer switching time (ELST) is a limiting constraint of the BDS and a determinant of the beam delivery time (BDT), along with the accelerator and other factors. This review evaluates the delivery process in detail, presenting the limitations and developments for the BDS and related accelerator technology, toward decreasing the BDT. As extended BDT impacts motion and has dosimetric implications for treatment, we discuss avenues to minimize the ELST and overview the clinical benefits and feasibility of a large energy acceptance BDS. These developments support the possibility of advanced modalities and faster delivery for a greater range of treatment indications which could also further reduce costs. Further work to realize methodologies such as volumetric rescanning, FLASH, arc, multi-ion and online image guided therapies are discussed. In this review we examine how increased treatment efficiency and efficacy could be achieved with improvements in beam delivery and how this could lead to faster and higher quality treatments for the future of CPT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacinta Yap
- School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Andrea De Franco
- IFMIF Accelerator Development Group, Rokkasho Fusion Institute, National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology, Aomori, Japan
| | - Suzie Sheehy
- School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
DeJongh DF, DeJongh EA, Rykalin V, DeFillippo G, Pankuch M, Best AW, Coutrakon G, Duffin KL, Karonis NT, Ordoñez CE, Sarosiek C, Schulte RW, Winans JR, Block AM, Hentz CL, Welsh JS. A comparison of proton stopping power measured with proton CT and x-ray CT in fresh postmortem porcine structures. Med Phys 2021; 48:7998-8009. [PMID: 34739140 PMCID: PMC8678357 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15334] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/16/2021] [Revised: 09/05/2021] [Accepted: 10/22/2021] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Currently, calculations of proton range in proton therapy patients are based on a conversion of CT Hounsfield units of patient tissues into proton relative stopping power. Uncertainties in this conversion necessitate larger proximal and distal planned target volume margins. Proton CT can potentially reduce these uncertainties by directly measuring proton stopping power. We aim to demonstrate proton CT imaging with complex porcine samples, to analyze in detail three-dimensional regions of interest, and to compare proton stopping powers directly measured by proton CT to those determined from x-ray CT scans. METHODS We have used a prototype proton imaging system with single proton tracking to acquire proton radiography and proton CT images of a sample of porcine pectoral girdle and ribs, and a pig's head. We also acquired close in time x-ray CT scans of the same samples and compared proton stopping power measurements from the two modalities. In the case of the pig's head, we obtained x-ray CT scans from two different scanners and compared results from high-dose and low-dose settings. RESULTS Comparing our reconstructed proton CT images with images derived from x-ray CT scans, we find agreement within 1% to 2% for soft tissues and discrepancies of up to 6% for compact bone. We also observed large discrepancies, up to 40%, for cavitated regions with mixed content of air, soft tissue, and bone, such as sinus cavities or tympanic bullae. CONCLUSIONS Our images and findings from a clinically realistic proton CT scanner demonstrate the potential for proton CT to be used for low-dose treatment planning with reduced margins.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Greg DeFillippo
- Northwestern Medicine Chicago Proton Center, Warrenville, Illinois, USA
| | - Mark Pankuch
- Northwestern Medicine Chicago Proton Center, Warrenville, Illinois, USA
| | - Andrew W Best
- Department of Physics, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA
| | - George Coutrakon
- Department of Physics, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA
| | - Kirk L Duffin
- Department of Computer Science, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA
| | - Nicholas T Karonis
- Department of Computer Science, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA
- Argonne National Laboratory, Data Science and Learning Division, Argonne, Illinois, USA
| | - Caesar E Ordoñez
- Department of Computer Science, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA
| | - Christina Sarosiek
- Department of Physics, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA
| | | | - John R Winans
- Department of Computer Science, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA
| | - Alec M Block
- Edward Hines Jr. VA Medical Center, Radiation Oncology Service, Hines, Illinois, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois, USA
| | - Courtney L Hentz
- Edward Hines Jr. VA Medical Center, Radiation Oncology Service, Hines, Illinois, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois, USA
| | - James S Welsh
- Edward Hines Jr. VA Medical Center, Radiation Oncology Service, Hines, Illinois, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Vidal M, Moignier C, Patriarca A, Sotiropoulos M, Schneider T, De Marzi L. Future technological developments in proton therapy - A predicted technological breakthrough. Cancer Radiother 2021; 25:554-564. [PMID: 34272182 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2021.06.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2021] [Accepted: 06/18/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
In the current spectrum of cancer treatments, despite high costs, a lack of robust evidence based on clinical outcomes or technical and radiobiological uncertainties, particle therapy and in particular proton therapy (PT) is rapidly growing. Despite proton therapy being more than fifty years old (first proposed by Wilson in 1946) and more than 220,000 patients having been treated with in 2020, many technological challenges remain and numerous new technical developments that must be integrated into existing systems. This article presents an overview of on-going technical developments and innovations that we felt were most important today, as well as those that have the potential to significantly shape the future of proton therapy. Indeed, efforts have been done continuously to improve the efficiency of a PT system, in terms of cost, technology and delivery technics, and a number of different developments pursued in the accelerator field will first be presented. Significant developments are also underway in terms of transport and spatial resolution achievable with pencil beam scanning, or conformation of the dose to the target: we will therefore discuss beam focusing and collimation issues which are important parameters for the development of these techniques, as well as proton arc therapy. State of the art and alternative approaches to adaptive PT and the future of adaptive PT will finally be reviewed. Through these overviews, we will finally see how advances in these different areas will allow the potential for robust dose shaping in proton therapy to be maximised, probably foreshadowing a future era of maturity for the PT technique.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Vidal
- Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, Fédération Claude Lalanne, 227, avenue de la Lanterne, 06200 Nice, France
| | - C Moignier
- Centre François Baclesse, Department of Medical Physics, Centre de protonthérapie de Normandie, 14000 Caen, France
| | - A Patriarca
- Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Radiation oncology department, Centre de protonthérapie d'Orsay, Campus universitaire, bâtiment 101, 91898 Orsay, France
| | - M Sotiropoulos
- Institut Curie, Université PSL, CNRS UMR3347, Inserm U1021, Signalisation radiobiologie et cancer, 91400 Orsay, France
| | - T Schneider
- Institut Curie, Université PSL, CNRS UMR3347, Inserm U1021, Signalisation radiobiologie et cancer, 91400 Orsay, France
| | - L De Marzi
- Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Radiation oncology department, Centre de protonthérapie d'Orsay, Campus universitaire, bâtiment 101, 91898 Orsay, France; Institut Curie, PSL Research University, University Paris Saclay, Inserm LITO, Campus universitaire, 91898 Orsay, France.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Sarosiek C, DeJongh EA, Coutrakon G, DeJongh DF, Duffin KL, Karonis NT, Ordoñez CE, Pankuch M, Rykalin V, Winans JR, Welsh JS. Analysis of characteristics of images acquired with a prototype clinical proton radiography system. Med Phys 2021; 48:2271-2278. [PMID: 33621368 DOI: 10.1002/mp.14801] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2020] [Revised: 01/20/2021] [Accepted: 02/16/2021] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Verification of patient-specific proton stopping powers obtained in the patient's treatment position can be used to reduce the distal and proximal margins needed in particle beam planning. Proton radiography can be used as a pretreatment instrument to verify integrated stopping power consistency with the treatment planning CT. Although a proton radiograph is a pixel by pixel representation of integrated stopping powers, the image may also be of high enough quality and contrast to be used for patient alignment. This investigation quantifies the accuracy and image quality of a prototype proton radiography system on a clinical proton delivery system. METHODS We have developed a clinical prototype proton radiography system designed for integration into efficient clinical workflows. We tested the images obtained by this system for water-equivalent thickness (WET) accuracy, image noise, and spatial resolution. We evaluated the WET accuracy by comparing the average WET and rms error in several regions of interest (ROI) on a proton radiograph of a custom peg phantom. We measured the spatial resolution on a CATPHAN Line Pair phantom and a custom edge phantom by measuring the 10% value of the modulation transfer function (MTF). In addition, we tested the ability to detect proton range errors due to anatomical changes in a patient with a customized CIRS pediatric head phantom and inserts of varying WET placed in the posterior fossae of the brain. We took proton radiographs of the phantom with each insert in place and created difference maps between the resulting images. Integrated proton range was measured from an ROI in the difference maps. RESULTS We measured the WET accuracy of the proton radiographic images to be ±0.2 mm (0.33%) from known values. The spatial resolution of the images was 0.6 lp/mm on the line pair phantom and 1.13 lp/mm on the edge phantom. We were able to detect anatomical changes producing changes in WET as low as 0.6 mm. CONCLUSION The proton radiography system produces images with image quality sufficient for pretreatment range consistency verification.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christina Sarosiek
- Department of Physics, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, 60115, USA
| | | | - George Coutrakon
- Department of Physics, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, 60115, USA
| | | | - Kirk L Duffin
- Department of Computer Science, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, 60115, USA
| | - Nicholas T Karonis
- Department of Computer Science, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, 60115, USA.,Argonne National Laboratory, Data Science and Learning Division, Argonne, IL, 60439, USA
| | - Caesar E Ordoñez
- Department of Computer Science, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, 60115, USA
| | - Mark Pankuch
- Northwestern Medicine Chicago Proton Center, Warrenville, IL, 60555, USA
| | | | - John R Winans
- Department of Computer Science, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, 60115, USA
| | - James S Welsh
- Radiation Oncology Service, Edward Hines Jr VA Medical Center, Hines, IL, 60141, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Mazal A, Vera Sanchez JA, Sanchez-Parcerisa D, Udias JM, España S, Sanchez-Tembleque V, Fraile LM, Bragado P, Gutierrez-Uzquiza A, Gordillo N, Garcia G, Castro Novais J, Perez Moreno JM, Mayorga Ortiz L, Ilundain Idoate A, Cremades Sendino M, Ares C, Miralbell R, Schreuder N. Biological and Mechanical Synergies to Deal With Proton Therapy Pitfalls: Minibeams, FLASH, Arcs, and Gantryless Rooms. Front Oncol 2021; 10:613669. [PMID: 33585238 PMCID: PMC7874206 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.613669] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2020] [Accepted: 12/02/2020] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Proton therapy has advantages and pitfalls comparing with photon therapy in radiation therapy. Among the limitations of protons in clinical practice we can selectively mention: uncertainties in range, lateral penumbra, deposition of higher LET outside the target, entrance dose, dose in the beam path, dose constraints in critical organs close to the target volume, organ movements and cost. In this review, we combine proposals under study to mitigate those pitfalls by using individually or in combination: (a) biological approaches of beam management in time (very high dose rate “FLASH” irradiations in the order of 100 Gy/s) and (b) modulation in space (a combination of mini-beams of millimetric extent), together with mechanical approaches such as (c) rotational techniques (optimized in partial arcs) and, in an effort to reduce cost, (d) gantry-less delivery systems. In some cases, these proposals are synergic (e.g., FLASH and minibeams), in others they are hardly compatible (mini-beam and rotation). Fixed lines have been used in pioneer centers, or for specific indications (ophthalmic, radiosurgery,…), they logically evolved to isocentric gantries. The present proposals to produce fixed lines are somewhat controversial. Rotational techniques, minibeams and FLASH in proton therapy are making their way, with an increasing degree of complexity in these three approaches, but with a high interest in the basic science and clinical communities. All of them must be proven in clinical applications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Daniel Sanchez-Parcerisa
- Grupo de Física Nuclear and IPARCOS, U. Complutense Madrid, CEI Moncloa, Madrid, Spain.,Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.,Sedecal Molecular Imaging, Madrid, Spain
| | - Jose Manuel Udias
- Grupo de Física Nuclear and IPARCOS, U. Complutense Madrid, CEI Moncloa, Madrid, Spain.,Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
| | - Samuel España
- Grupo de Física Nuclear and IPARCOS, U. Complutense Madrid, CEI Moncloa, Madrid, Spain.,Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
| | - Victor Sanchez-Tembleque
- Grupo de Física Nuclear and IPARCOS, U. Complutense Madrid, CEI Moncloa, Madrid, Spain.,Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
| | - Luis Mario Fraile
- Grupo de Física Nuclear and IPARCOS, U. Complutense Madrid, CEI Moncloa, Madrid, Spain.,Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
| | - Paloma Bragado
- Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.,Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. U. Complutense, Madrid, Spain
| | - Alvaro Gutierrez-Uzquiza
- Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.,Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. U. Complutense, Madrid, Spain
| | - Nuria Gordillo
- Department of Applied Physics, U. Autonoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.,Center for Materials Microanalysis, (CMAM), U. Autonoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
| | - Gaston Garcia
- Center for Materials Microanalysis, (CMAM), U. Autonoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Carme Ares
- Centro de Protonterapia Quironsalud, Madrid, Spain
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Rana S, Bennouna J, Gutierrez AN, Rosenfeld AB. Impact of magnetic field regulation in conjunction with the volumetric repainting technique on the spot positions and beam range in pencil beam scanning proton therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2020; 21:124-131. [PMID: 33058380 PMCID: PMC7700936 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13045] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2020] [Revised: 08/14/2020] [Accepted: 09/08/2020] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the magnetic field regulation in conjunction with the volumetric repainting technique on the spot positions and range in pencil beam scanning proton therapy. Methods “Field regulation” — a feature to reduce the switching time between layers by applying a magnetic field setpoint (instead of a current setpoint) has been implemented on the proton beam delivery system at the Miami Cancer Institute. To investigate the impact of field regulation for the volumetric repainting technique, several spot maps were generated with beam delivery sequence in both directions, that is, irradiating from the deepest layer to the most proximal layer (“down” direction) as well as irradiating from the most proximal layer to the deepest layer (“up” direction). Range measurements were performed using a multi‐layer ionization chamber array. Spot positions were measured using two‐dimensional and three‐dimensional scintillation detectors. For range and central‐axis spot position, spot maps were delivered for energies ranging from 70–225 MeV. For off‐axis spot positions, the maps were delivered for high‐, medium, and low‐energies at eight different gantry angles. The results were then compared between the “up” and “down” directions. Results The average difference in range for given energy between “up” and “down” directions was 0.0 ± 0.1 mm. The off‐axis spot position results showed that 846/864 of the spots were within ±1 mm, and all off‐axis spot positions were within ±1.2 mm. For spots (n = 126) at the isocenter, the evaluation between “up” and “down” directions for given energy showed the spot position difference within ±0.25 mm. At the nozzle entrance, the average differences in X and Y positions for given energy were 0.0 ± 0.2 mm and −0.0 ± 0.4 mm, respectively. At the nozzle exit, the average differences in X and Y positions for given energy were 0.0 ± 0.1 mm and −0.1 ± 0.1 mm, respectively. Conclusion The volumetric repainting technique in magnetic field regulation mode resulted in acceptable spot position and range differences for our beam delivery system. The range differences were found to be within ±1 mm (TG224). For the spot positions (TG224: ±1 mm), the central axis measurements were within ±1 mm, whereas for the off‐axis measurements, 97.9% of the spots were within ±1 mm, and all spots were within ±1.2 mm.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suresh Rana
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA.,Department of Medical Physics, The Oklahoma Proton Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.,Centre for Medical Radiation Physics (CMRP), University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
| | - Jaafar Bennouna
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA
| | - Alonso N Gutierrez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA
| | - Anatoly B Rosenfeld
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics (CMRP), University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Technical challenges for FLASH proton therapy. Phys Med 2020; 78:71-82. [PMID: 32947086 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.08.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 61] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2020] [Revised: 08/03/2020] [Accepted: 08/04/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
There is growing interest in the radiotherapy community in the application of FLASH radiotherapy, wherein the dose is delivered to the entire treatment volume in less than a second. Early pre-clinical evidence suggests that these extremely high dose rates provide significant sparing of healthy tissue compared to conventional radiotherapy without reducing the damage to cancerous cells. This interest has been reflected in the proton therapy community, with early tests indicating that the FLASH effect is also present with high dose rate proton irradiation. In order to deliver clinically relevant doses at FLASH dose rates significant technical hurdles must be overcome in the accelerator technology before FLASH proton therapy can be realised. Of these challenges, increasing the average current from the present clinical range of 1-10 nA to in excess of 100 nA is at least feasible with existing technology, while the necessity for rapid energy adjustment on the order of a few milliseconds is much more challenging, particularly for synchrotron-based systems. However, the greatest challenge is to implement full pencil beam scanning, where scanning speeds 2 orders of magnitude faster than the existing state-of-the-art will be necessary, along with similar improvements in the speed and accuracy of associated dosimetry. Hybrid systems utilising 3D-printed patient specific range modulators present the most likely route to clinical delivery. However, to correctly adapt and develop existing technology to meet the challenges of FLASH, more pre-clinical studies are needed to properly establish the beam parameters that are necessary to produce the FLASH effect.
Collapse
|
17
|
Could Protons and Carbon Ions Be the Silver Bullets Against Pancreatic Cancer? Int J Mol Sci 2020; 21:ijms21134767. [PMID: 32635552 PMCID: PMC7369903 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21134767] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/27/2020] [Revised: 06/30/2020] [Accepted: 07/01/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Pancreatic cancer is a very aggressive cancer type associated with one of the poorest prognostics. Despite several clinical trials to combine different types of therapies, none of them resulted in significant improvements for patient survival. Pancreatic cancers demonstrate a very broad panel of resistance mechanisms due to their biological properties but also their ability to remodel the tumour microenvironment. Radiotherapy is one of the most widely used treatments against cancer but, up to now, its impact remains limited in the context of pancreatic cancer. The modern era of radiotherapy proposes new approaches with increasing conformation but also more efficient effects on tumours in the case of charged particles. In this review, we highlight the interest in using charged particles in the context of pancreatic cancer therapy and the impact of this alternative to counteract resistance mechanisms.
Collapse
|
18
|
Gu W, Ruan D, Lyu Q, Zou W, Dong L, Sheng K. A novel energy layer optimization framework for spot-scanning proton arc therapy. Med Phys 2020; 47:2072-2084. [PMID: 32040214 DOI: 10.1002/mp.14083] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2019] [Revised: 01/21/2020] [Accepted: 02/04/2020] [Indexed: 01/07/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Spot-scanning proton arc therapy (SPAT) is an emerging modality to improve plan conformality and delivery efficiency. A greedy and heuristic method is proposed in the existing SPAT algorithm to select energy layers and sequence energy switching with gantry rotation, which does not promise optimality in either dosimetry or efficiency. We aim to develop a method to solve the energy layer switching and dosimetry optimization problems in an integrated framework for SPAT. METHODS In an integrated approach, energy layer optimization for spot-scanning proton arc therapy (ELO-SPAT) is formulated with a dose fidelity term, a group sparsity regularization, a log barrier regularization, and an energy sequencing (ES) penalty. The combination of L2,1/2-norm group sparsity regularization and log barrier function allows one energy layer being selected per control point. The ES regularization term sorts the delivery sequence from high energy to low energy to reduce the total energy layer switching time (ELST) and subsequently the total delivery time. Within the ES penalty, the gradient of layer weights between adjacent beams is first calculated along beam direction and then along energy direction. The gradients indicate energy switch patterns between two adjacent beams. The time-wise costly energy switch-up is more heavily penalized in the ES term. This ELO-SPAT method was tested on one frontal base-of-skull (BOS) patient, one chordoma (CHDM) patient with a simultaneous integrated boost, one bilateral head-and-neck (H&N) patient, and one lung (LNG) patient. We compared ELO-SPAT with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) using discrete beams and SPArc by Ding et al. For the two arc algorithms, both the plans with and without energy sequencing were created and compared. RESULTS Energy layer optimization for spot-scanning proton arc therapy reduced the runtime of optimization by 84% on average compared with the greedy SPArc method. In both the ELO-SPAT plans with and without ES, one energy layer per control point was selected. Without ES regularization, the energy sequence was arbitrary, with around 40-60 switch-up for the tested cases. After adding ES regularization, the number of energy switch-up was reduced to less than 20. Compared with the energy sequenced SPArc plans, the ELO-SPAT plans with ES led to 24% less total ELST for synchrotron plans and 14% less for cyclotron plans. Both the ELO-SPAT and SPArc plans achieved better sparing compared with the IMPT plans for most Organs-at-risks (OARs), with or without ES. Without ES, the ELO-SPAT plans achieved further improvement of the OARs compared with the SPArc plans, with an averaged reduction of OAR [Dmean, Dmax] by [1.57, 3.34] GyRBE. Adding the ES regularization degraded the plan quality, but the ELO-SPAT plans still had comparable or slightly better sparing than the SPArc plans with ES, with an averaged reduction of OAR [Dmean, Dmax] by [1.42, 2.34] GyRBE. CONCLUSION We developed a computationally efficient spot-scanning proton arc optimization method, which solved energy layer selection and sequencing in an integrated framework, generating plans with good dosimetry and high delivery efficiency.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wenbo Gu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA
| | - Dan Ruan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA
| | - Qihui Lyu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA
| | - Wei Zou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
| | - Lei Dong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
| | - Ke Sheng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Parodi K. Latest developments in in-vivo imaging for proton therapy. Br J Radiol 2020; 93:20190787. [PMID: 31794249 PMCID: PMC7066959 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190787] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2019] [Revised: 11/18/2019] [Accepted: 11/28/2019] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Owing to the favorable physical and biological properties of swift ions in matter, their application to radiation therapy for highly selective cancer treatment is rapidly spreading worldwide. To date, over 90 ion therapy facilities are operational, predominantly with proton beams, and about the same amount is under construction or planning.Over the last decades, considerable developments have been achieved in accelerator technology, beam delivery and medical physics to enhance conformation of the dose delivery to complex shaped tumor volumes, with excellent sparing of surrounding normal tissue and critical organs. Nevertheless, full clinical exploitation of the ion beam advantages is still challenged, especially by uncertainties in the knowledge of the beam range in the actual patient anatomy during the fractionated course of treatment, thus calling for continued multidisciplinary research in this rapidly emerging field.This contribution will review latest developments aiming to image the patient with the same beam quality as for therapy prior to treatment, and to visualize in-vivo the treatment delivery by exploiting irradiation-induced physical emissions, with different level of maturity from proof-of-concept studies in phantoms and first in-silico studies up to clinical testing and initial clinical evaluation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katia Parodi
- Department of Experimental Physics – Medical Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Faculty of Physics, Munich, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Held KD, Lomax AJ, Troost EGC. Proton therapy special feature: introductory editorial. Br J Radiol 2020; 93:20209004. [PMID: 32081045 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20209004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Kathryn D Held
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Antony J Lomax
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland.,Department of Physics, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Esther G C Troost
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Dresden, Germany
| |
Collapse
|